Probably a little.
I mean…no, I don’t think so. I’ll reiterate my earlier discussion on the topic. It just made logical and logistical financial sense to cashier the Bay Area bases, particularly the Alameda NAS. Did some of the local anti-military political rhetoric make it easier to sell internally and maybe generate a little pleased schadenfreude among military planners and Republican politicians? Sure, I have no doubt. But I don’t think it was the major selling point.
The major selling point was that you don’t need a centrally-located four-carrier port on the West coast when you can stash three of six in Bremerton in the north and three of six in San Diego to the south. Redundancy would make more sense if major bases on U.S. soil were under threat. But they just aren’t in the current world climate. Given that it just became a very expensive luxury and it made sense to keep the bases on the wings rather than in the middle.